Girlfriends old landlord threats

[vtecyo]

Hi all,

Long story short:

- girlfriend moves into flat for 3 months on a short term tenancy
- pays deposit, landlord does not put into deposit protection scheme
- end of tenancy, deposit is refunded in full
- a couple of months later, landlord asks for three hundred pounds to repaint a room due to damage by a popular pliable blue adhesive substance
- said popular blue substance is forbidden to use in contract
- girlfriend admits fault but disagrees charges, offers £100
- landord threatens to recover full sum through courts

My personal opinion is that he has no rights to claim due to deposit being paid in full. Furthermore she could screw him over for not using a deposit protection scheme (which I'm fairly sure is against the law?).

Most recent email from him is rather threatening and has been harassing with many phone calls from landline and mobile.

Thanks in advance.

Edited by vtecyo on Wednesday 25th October 20:09

ETA: Tenancy finished in May. He requested payment in July.

Edited by vtecyo on Wednesday 25th October 20:35

Edited by vtecyo on Thursday 26th October 08:54

[OddCat]

She did £300 of damage in 3 months using Blue-tac !!

[vtecyo]

He took it upon himself to hire a contractor to repaint the whole room (so he claims anyway) due to university notes being stuck on two walls. Not over the entire walls either. Far from it.

[johnwilliams77]

Can she do anything to sweeten the deal?

[Bristol spark]

OddCat said:

She did £300 of damage in 3 months using Blue-tac !!

Blue tac is awful stuff to remove.
Infact its in my tenancy contract that the use of Blue tac on walls is not allowed!

[vtecyo]

Bristol spark said:

Blue tac is awful stuff to remove.
Infact its in my tenancy contract that the use of Blue tac on walls is not allowed!

Ah, I should add that in as well. It's in hers too.

[johnwilliams77]

Tell him to take her to court

[Gav5000]

If your landlord didn't put the deposit into a deposit protection scheme I don't believe he would have a leg to stand on in court, even if you had trashed the place. I'm not 100% on this though, hopefully someone can clarify.

[So]

vtecyo said:

Hi all,

Long story short:

- girlfriend moves into flat for 3 months on a short term tenancy
- pays deposit, landlord does not put into deposit protection scheme
- end of tenancy, deposit is refunded in full
- a couple of weeks later, landlord asks for three hundred pounds to repaint a room due to damage by a popular pliable blue adhesive substance
- girlfriend admits fault but disagrees charges, offers £100
- landord threatens to recover full sum through courts

My personal opinion is that he has no rights to claim due to deposit being paid in full. Furthermore she could screw him over for not using a deposit protection scheme (which I'm fairly sure is against the law?).

Most recent email from him is rather threatening and has been harassing with many phone calls from landline and mobile.

Thanks in advance.

Consider this version of events:

Girlfriend moved into a shared property on a licence or a short tenancy where the deposit is not held for condition. In neither case must the deposit be protected.

Girlfriend moves out and landlord doesn't notice damaged walls, or returns deposit because rent obligations have been met.

Landlord notices damage and gets painter to re-paint. The whole room needs doing to ensure a match. It costs £300.

Should she pay?

[anonymous-user]

Gav5000 said:

If your landlord didn't put the deposit into a deposit protection scheme I don't believe he would have a leg to stand on in court, even if you had trashed the place. I'm not 100% on this though, hopefully someone can clarify.

^ what he said

I was also under the impression, based on a previous tenancy that 6 months was the absolute minimum duration for a tenancy by law. Letting agent may well have been talking out of his chocolate starfish though so I don’t know.

[So]

Jbeale96 said:

Gav5000 said:

If your landlord didn't put the deposit into a deposit protection scheme I don't believe he would have a leg to stand on in court, even if you had trashed the place. I'm not 100% on this though, hopefully someone can clarify.

^ what he said

I was also under the impression, based on a previous tenancy that 6 months was the absolute minimum duration for a tenancy by law. Letting agent may well have been talking out of his chocolate starfish though so I don’t know.

Neither point is correct. An AST can be for 3 months, not all occupiers are tenants, not all deposits must be protected.

[vtecyo]

So said:

Neither point is correct. An AST can be for 3 months, not all occupiers are tenants, not all deposits must be protected.

Care to elaborate?

[So]

vtecyo said:

So said:

Neither point is correct. An AST can be for 3 months, not all occupiers are tenants, not all deposits must be protected.

Care to elaborate?

Someone above said that an AST has to be for a minimum of 6 months. It doesn't.

In some situations occupiers can be licensees not tenants, in those circumstances deposits don't need to be protected. Typically this is where the landlord lives in the same building or where services, for example cleaning, are provided.

Deposits taken only to meet rent obligations don't need to be protected.

[Triumph Man]

Having done this once myself (landlord) if I returned a deposit and then saw damage I would take it as my fault for not being observant and noticing!

[KungFuPanda]

Give him an address to issue and serve proceedings on. He won't.

[Du1point8]

Wish I could get one of my rooms in my property fully painted for 100GBP

[PurpleMoonlight]

Do I understand this correctly, she damaged someone's property and does not wish to compensate them for the repair?

[Du1point8]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Do I understand this correctly, she damaged someone's property and does not wish to compensate them for the repair?

Yup I see this bit:

- a couple of weeks later, landlord asks for three hundred pounds to repaint a room due to damage by a popular pliable blue adhesive substance
- said popular blue substance is forbidden to use in contract
- girlfriend admits fault but disagrees charges, offers £100

So OP GF either didnt read or ignored the contract stating that blue substance is forbidden to use as it stains walls.

Obviously the LL is unhappy and wants the cost of painting a room, states its £300, which is not far off the cost per room (240-330 for medium) the LL would be charged, OP's GF then thinks its too much and offers 33% of the costs.

They then come up with the harassment BS, as both are sticking head in the sand waiting for it to go away and quite rightly the LL wants the costs of the damage done.

I personally think the OP's GF should just pay it and learn to read contracts, not damage other peoples property and if she does then pay up for the damage. The OP and GF should not shirk their responsibilities and spend time trying to find out BS loopholes of harassment (LL would ring if you paid for damage) or the DPS idea, or any other thing not to pay for damage that she actually caused and admitted through ignorance/arrogance.

[anonymous-user]

So said:

Someone above said that an AST has to be for a minimum of 6 months. It doesn't.

In some situations occupiers can be licensees not tenants, in those circumstances deposits don't need to be protected. Typically this is where the landlord lives in the same building or where services, for example cleaning, are provided.

Deposits taken only to meet rent obligations don't need to be protected.

(1) I agree . There is no minimum period for an AST.

(2) I agree that not all occupants are tenants (the key distinction between licence and tenancy being a right in the latter case to exclusive occupation, IIRC), but the suggestion is that in this case the renter had a tenancy, not a licence to occupy. Deposit protection is not required when the landlord lives in the same place, but I am not sure that provision of services by a non-resident landlord would by itself excuse non protection.

(3) Can you please provide an authority for the proposition re rent deposits? It appears to run counter to the Housing Act 2004, but this is not my field and you may be aware of something that I'm not aware of.

The Act defines a tenancy deposit for a shorthold tenancy as -

"any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for–
(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b) the discharge of any liability of his,
arising under or in connection with the tenancy."

A deposit held to secure the obligation to pay rent falls within this definition, but it may be that there is some regulation or case law that I don't know of that supports your position.

[Duncan Lang]

Sounds like your girlfriend is being a bit of a prick. Tell her to pay up. 300 quid isn't bad to have a room painted. 100 quid takes the piss. It'll cost getting on for half that in materials before you even pay a contractor. If she can get it done for that, she should have had it done before she left.